Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral fact, that values come from the platform DB rather than the on-chain ConfigurationRegistry, and 'Read' implies a non-mutating call, but it says nothing about auth requirements, what happens when a key is unset, or how structured keys like 'card' or 'tags' are returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoping, with the disambiguation carried in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 3 fully documented params and no output schema, the description is adequate to invoke the tool correctly, but it omits what comes back, which matters given configKey can select scalar fields or structured ones (tags, capabilities, card).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, covering chain enum, agentId, and the enumerable configKey options, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'by key' framing and the DB-vs-chain scope, not shape or format details for the returned value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('agent spec/config value by key') and explicitly excludes the on-chain ConfigurationRegistry, which clarifies what data source is being read. It implicitly distinguishes itself from actora_config_list (single key vs. list) and actora_config_set (read vs. write), though it never names those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'by key' signals a single-value lookup and the parenthetical rules out the on-chain registry, but there is no explicit instruction on when to prefer actora_config_list or actora_config_set, and no stated prerequisites or error behavior for unknown keys.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.